Mr. Adam Ross ; there is another discussion I would like to have with you and
that one is the very last catastrophe from "worlds in collision "
and earth in upheaval of which I have good reason to believe that these
islands were finally formed after this final catastrophe prior to the pre-Roman
iron age in these islands of AM 3500 or 504 BC and according to one of the
team this is a forbidden date that I am not supposed to make enquiries into .
However more of that later. I would just make one note on that ; and that is
that I refuse to have my enquiries impeded or suppressed which is what it amounts
to by any one who holds different views to mine. To get back to our
discussion on catastrophism I believe that about 1500 BC Venus could well have
been a comet which probably resulted in the tidal motion of the north sea
flooding part of the coastline which was once part of Britain; and as Bill Cooper
rightly says this could have some bearing on the ice age lasting
maybe 1000 years or more; but the fact of the matter is the north sea
according to the information that I have receded and became dry land again and
there were several catastrophes involving venues; and the last one was a fly
by of Mars ; (Nergal) the Roman god of war; and the north sea and indeed
English channel flooded the dogger bank and other places and finally formed the
British Isles. We also have evidence of cavemen in historic times and it
would be absurd to shut one's eyes to the fact because archaeologists have
found bronze age Paleolithic/Mesolithic and Neolithic implements and weaponry in the north sea. I think that the first time was during the
Neolithic period
which I have dated at 1484 BC and not without good reason in accordance with
Bill Cooper's "After the Flood" which probably flooded part of Ireland
at that time. There is however one thing that this author wishes to
make absolutely clear. Indeed given the evidence that the Mesolithic industry
of which there are abundant remains on Tory Island it is absolutely clear
from this evidence alone and secular books I've seen on the subject show that
the Mesolithic industry persisted in certain parts of Britain until the end
of the Bronze age. The evidence I have found for this comes from Xenophile
historian Mr. Charles S Kimball (cave men in historic times and the genesis chronicles). And I would like you as one of the creation history team to
respond to this article. I am quite sure there will be some things that we do not
agree on and perhaps just as much again that we are agreed upon which
makes a discussion. I would like you if you would be so kind as to Give me the
dates in between 1104 BC (annomundi 2900) on Ussher's time line and 701 BC (am
3303) for the Firbolgue formores and the first brigade of Picts under King
Soderick; and that is basically all I need to know from you apart from your
main response to my article. The catastrophic evidence alone demands a
shortening of chronology. The evidence I have for this is as follows: First brigade
of formores and Neanderthal 2035 BC (am 1969). 2. Annomundi 2520
Parthelon Neolithic industry. 3 Nemedian colony AM 2859 and 1145 BC Bronze
industry 4. 1104 BC (Britain) am 2900 Brutus with the introduction of Bronze
here on Britain. 5. Dates unknown for the Firbolgue formores and first brigade
of Picts until 701 BC . This is number 6. (7) The Milisians take Ireland from
the Tuatha de dannan who were there in 701 BC and bring the iron industry to
Ireland in 504 BC. The other evidence we have is that (8) in 220 BC we have
the La tene Celts with iron and in 100 BC another brigade of Picts. 100 BC=3904 annomundi and from simple
arithmetic we get 100 BC +3904 AM =4004 BC. Don't forget there is good reason
to believe that Brutus started the Bronze industry on Britain. For one he
landed in Totnes 2 his brother was Corenius after whom Cornwall is named . 3
The tin mines (and or copper). and 4 The bridge in London or the
"Vauxhall Bridge" is dated at 1500 BC by uniformitarian
archaeologists supposedly. Brutus founded London and I suggest that the bridge
was built by his dynasty and no one else; so this is why we have to reduce the
chronology for the Neolithic industry by 500 plus years ; as Ussher's time
line violates just about every uniformitarian date evaluated by modernist
archaeologists and this author intends to campaign for a reduction in
chronology so far as these islands are concerned until it is achieved. My
final word on the subject is that this author does not agree with Mike Gascoigne
on his "Forgotten history of the Western People". And also
let the author say that Ussher's word is far from irrelevant as some would
have us believe; especially where Ireland is concerned. Conclusion: You've
seen the evidence and the archaeological evidence which all though on their
chronology is plus 300 and odd years to the bronze age actually needs reducing
to 1145 for Ireland and 1104 for Britain. The evidence for some might be too radical
to contemplate but the author insists must be contemplated until it
is achieved no matter how hard the road and as long as the task may take; and
this author will not give up and refuses to go away until it is achieved. Is
all this evidence circumstantial? I hardly think so. It is a bit like a
"who dunnit" or being like Sherlock Homes and Dr Watson. Once you
have eliminated the impossible then only the possible remains and so
therefore must be the truth. This shows that in this case and especially in
the case of Brutus there are just too many co-incidences so if the theory is
correct and the facts fit the theory then the theory is no longer theory but
fact like it or not. JohnHXF (author)

CATASTROPHES AND BABEL

JXF TO DJ
Dan have you any news on Richard Geer's table ; because I have been left in
the dark over this and would like to know if you are still getting my mail
or perhaps you have been too busy to answer them. I now have the book but I
was too busy getting ready for my vacation. I have sent you lots of
links particularly on the ice age as to a catastrophe at Babel but you do not
seem to have responded. I will take a look. As I say Dr Northrup's
idea of
the ice age starting at Babel is exactly the same as my idea only the dates
are different and do
not tow as I've said before the "creation party line" one hundred
percent
although I agree that the flood was a contributing factor. I have not yet
seen enough conclusive evidence to rule on way or another relating to a
catastrophic occurance triggering the Tower of Babel confusion. I will
of
course take a look at your links. There are plenty
of instances in the Old testament for cosmic catastrophes and I for one am
in agreement with Velekovskey in this connection and per Gunnar Heinsohn.
The dates I suggested be investigated were 747 BC ; 1500 BC ; 2242 BC and
especially 687 BC from Ussher's Annals of the World. Why sit on the evidence
or store it in some retrieval system like the evolutionist does. We are not
evolutionist are we? As for calibration on dates: this is also an
uniformitarian notion and is here rejected by this author. Not sure why you
are talking about a retreival system or the dates you have mentioned.
The
other point I'd like to mention is why "does Noorbergen add to the
Genesis text about
Babel? Is he not adding to something that did'nt actually happen? Good
point! You may be right on. I do not agree with his grid
hypothesis and he
is more than likely just plain wrong. These are the sorts of things that
when we read them we wait for additional confirmation with evidence before
we take them "hook line and sinker". The evidence is just
plain lacking.
Bruce Cathie has held to similar hypothesis but I think it is likely that
the electromagnetic grid system that these people talk about is sourced from
the occult or an occult revelation. And does
not Genesis make it abundantly clear that there could have been no
migration before Babel Annomundi 1762 or 2242 BC in Ussher's Terms! Not sure
what you are talking about. There had to be migration before Babel since
they first settled in the foothills of Mt. Ararat and later migrated to the
plains of Shinar. They also would have been dependent on metals and
other
raw materials sourced from some distance away. Were not
the people before Babel simply the remnant of the "World Language
group" and
that indeed they built a city and a tower first in defiance of God's command
to disperse? and that the "Whole earth at that time was simply the near
or
middle Eastern remnent of the people who were destroyed in the flood? Not
sure what you mean by this. That
is my understanding of the bible and indeed so is it of Larry Pierce. John

FLOODING AT THE BLACK SEA

John Hext-Fremlin wrote:
Dan you'll find more on the black sea flood from Mike Fischer:- John

MF TO JXF:
I came across another paper you might be
interested in concerning Black Sea flooding.
This one was published in 2003 in Annual
Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences by
a researcher from Lamont-Doherty and two
French researchers. The proposition of
catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea has
been challenged since the Russian-American
expedition in 1993 (with follow-up reports
to 1999), and this 30 page review defends
it. Their date for the event is 8400 Before
Present, earlier than that of the report I told
you about previously. They acknowledge
that further evidence from core drilling would
build a tighter case. We may have to wait
for that to have higher confidence in the
conclusion. Let me know if you would like to
know more details of their analysis.

DJ TO JXF:

The date of 8000+ before present is obviously off. See what you can
pull
out of it for evidence for a much later date. What we should see is that
the archeological evidence should match up with a much later period of time,
perhaps between 1000 to 2000 BC. What do you think and why?

MF TO JXF:

From what I can find, radiocarbon dates
in the mainstream literature for Neanderthal
are no earlier than about 30,000 BC. I
doubt a journal editor would publish a report
that dated a Neanderthal artifact at 3,000 BC,
because he would assume it was bogus. That
does not mean recent artifacts do not exist,
just that they would have been "swept under
the rug". If you can get a lead on such a
hidden treasure, I will see if there is a lab
record, as we did previously. Good hunting.
Mike Fischer

ASTEROID STRIKE IN 2200 BC

JXF TO DJ
Dan I have confirmed that there was indeed an astroid strike in 2200 BC. The
weblink page is:- http://www.tilmari.pp.fi/tilmari2.htm
and I have another
one for you from page 26 of Ussher's Annals dated (in Ussher's Terms!)
annomundi 2107 and 1897 BC which was another astroid strike on Sodom and
Gamora of "Fire and Brimstone" and it is called to this day "Lake
Ashphelttatis". This is also mentioned by Velekovskey who's book I am
revising right now:- John. (Please investigate this).

DJ TO JXF

I do not think these researchers are working with very accurate dates.
They
are still using an evolutionary time scale and appear to be off by several
hundred years at least because they are using the Ptolemaic time scale.

However, this is the sort of information that we need to take a close look
at. I commend you on finding this type of information. We must take
this
information and compare it with that of other researchers to see if they
agree or are coming up with similar conclusions. I do not think we are
going to see much agreement yet because this original research appears to be
off in its dating system.

And how do we know that these are asteroid or comet crashes. I have not
seen enough conclusive evidence. I would like to see in ancient literature
descriptions of catastrophes for which asteroid or comet impact is
definitely the best explanation. I have not seen that in this article.

There are a number of possible explanations. 1) Weapons of mass
destruction
which would explain the tekites and large layers of melted sand/vertifiied
rock or obscidian and the high levels of radiation in areas such as
Mojendaro, India. 2) Still can not rule out volcanic action, 3) Sodom could
have been destroyed simply by an act of God. 4) The wax and wane of the
ice
age would account for disappearance of civilizations in desert regions and
also the wind/loess storms at the end of the ice age.

So I would take careful note of what these researchers are saying but also
try to keep in perspective what degree of probability there is for their
explanation for each fact and also see if we can make the presentation of
facts more accurate by fitting it in our best creationist flood geology &
ice age model and chronology.

I think you are on the right track.

I am not saying anything about the Neanderthals in the British Isles until
1500. I am just saying that they were there before the modern arrivals.
However, it is possible that the Pics or Formosians drove them out and or
are decendants of them and other groups who may have migrated to the Isles
after them.

JXF to DJ
Dan let us despite our diffrences be it during the flood and or Babel aggree
on one thing that is what ever the mechanism and we both seem to aggree that
the earth cooled off for about 100 years after the flood date and that way
and as you say this would give time for the ice age to develop after the
flood; so I think on that score wes hould have some kind of "gentlemen's
agreement. I would also tend to agree with you that the earliest
neanderhals would'nt have been in Britain the whole time as they were
nomadic hunter/gatherers and that would make a whole lot of good sense don't
you ggree and perhaps the same position for some of them from 1500 BC
onwards; so perhaps I could show this as a tentative explanation in my table
being that the Osgood chronology for the neanderthal is dated in the near
eastern countries from 2200 to 1870 BC and as you say in the "Isles to 1500
BC". John

John Hext-Fremlin wrote:
1 Ussher:- Response:- First Dan let me say that as Larry Pierce says the
Roman history merge swith the Persian history merges with the Greek and
Roman histories. I ask you again :- "Have you written to
larrypierce@alumni.uwaterloo.ca as I sugested to you?" It would appear that
indeed you have not as he would be a vital link in our present work in
descussions on this topic. I would therefore again advise you to write to
him at the above address. So you see we are also talking here about
supposed "fake Roman consuls" as the Roman Persian egyptien and Greek
histories
merge together. I have also repeatedly asked you for Richard Gear's date for
creation and the flood and still I have not seen it. How can I respond to
Gear's chronology when I have'nt even seen it so this for me is why this
present author is keeping an open mind on the subject and that untill such
time as he has seen Richard Gear's table will continue and insists here
that all exact dates thereof will be expressed in Ussher's Terms most
respectfullY! Let me however say that as far as I am concerned; "There is
nothing inherently wrong with you "searching for the truth. But I'd like to
point out the simplicity of Ussher's chronology and indeed how short the
said chronology thereof and indeed therein is. 2/ Neanderthal:- You say for
example that the neanderthal spread quickly over the earth; so that burying
our diffrences on Ussher just for the moment; I have aggreed to use the
later date as per sugested by you and Larry Pierce of 2200 BC and date him
in these islands untill 1500 BC if that's ok by you and would aggree that
yes this is the best evidence we have to date and would like to show it on
my table. There are a number of ammendments to it that I'd like to make.
From the creation date I'd like to show that before any "stone age
culture"
or deculture in "your terms" that there was from creation a pre "stoneage"
Goldern Bronze and Iron age as you say "Ages Upside Down" and carried
through the flood and Babel to the time when some groups became decultured
after Babel to be dated ca 2200 BC in your model and indeed Osgood's. This
sounds reasonable does it not? 3/. Astroid Strike in 2200 BC. This is dated
by this author at the time of Babel in Ussher's terms:- 2242 BC:- As for
"Where's the beef for this evidense I will answe your question by asking
you another question on Astroid Strikes. Are you seriously asking me to believe
that the crators on the moon were coursed supposedly by weapons of "mass
destruction". And would this not be a figment of the imagination? Would it
also stand up in a court of Law? Or would the "Jury still be out on this
decision. I respectfully put it to you that the evidense for astroid stikes
which you seem to completly reject is in the book of Job and the strike at
Sodom and Gamora of "Fire and Brimstone. Are you too rejecting the evidense
given by Dr Bernard Northrup because his oppinion counts as well as mine
and a number of other creationists wh oshare my view on this are concerned and
not merely creationists who "tow the Oard creation Party Line" because
they
are his dictates. Mike Fischer's info would be of the utmost importense in
this research and he does'nt appear to have been consulted as he is a
geologist his weblink page is www.newgeology.us;
For my purposes here I
don't one hundred percent rule out weapons "of mass destruction" and I
most
certainly do not reject as you do Velekovskey's evidence on the "Wittness
stand". To do so in the view of this author would be utterly futile if not
to say absurd! You have seen the evidense that I have given to you in the
orgoing weblinks pages and I would seriously ask you to reconsider the
implications of astroid strikes. Meanwhile I will try to find out where the
astroid struck in 2200 BC. John

There are not fake Roman consuls as there is to my
understanding no more
than 3 years difference between the two chronologies during the Roman
period, 80 years in the Persian, and 114 years during the post Exodus to
Kings period.

When I agreed with you regarding dating Neanderthals to the period 2200 to
1500 it was because they must fit in there sometime during that period.
However, that does not mean that they were there the whole time or that
pockets of them did not exist until a much later date, or that there was
not a mixing of the genes into the modern Europeans and Canaanites.

Weapons of mass destruction on the moon? Why are we talking about weapons
of mass destruction on the moon? Understand this that most secular
chronologies which rely on using Ptolemaic Egyptian chronology are several
hundred years off by the time they reach 2000 BC so why should I trust
their dates? Could they not even more likely be mistaking cosmic
catastrophies that precipitated the flood which also would have pocked the
moon with craters. I am not even yet convinced that their research is
sound. How would you know? How would you calibrate the dating system that
they have used to gage if it is accurate? On a secular time scale 2200
would equate to about several hundred years earlier for Near East
chronologies and even greater for sites more distant BC it does not
necessarily mean it occured at the time of Babel. It could be later or
earlier and most likely occured at the time of the flood. However, we have
no way of knowing. Do you know of any way of dating the
craters on the moon? I don't.

Regarding where an astroid may have struck. Most people think a large one
occured off the coast of the Yucatan in Mexico but I have not examined that
evidence.

There is another possibility for Sodom and Gomorrah. There were tar pits in
the vicinity as per Gen. chap. 11 (I think). All it would take for a major
destruction is for the whole series of tar pits and any underground
reservour to ignite. The badlands of the US were still buring when the
first explorers reached the site. Massive coal seams had burned for
enturies or more which was a major contributing factor to the formation of
the badlands. There is a lot of sulfur in both coal and tar.

From: Dan Janzen

Fake Roman Consuls? We are talking about Persian Kings.
Daniel speaks of
four Persian Kings to come. And Matheo and Josephus speak of different
numbers for the same period. Who is correct? There is a real problem in
relation to the length of the Persian empire. This may be explained by
the
>possiblity of coregenents from both Media and Persia and also by the fact
that some of the so called names of the Kings are actually titles that
could apply to any time meaning supreme ruler (like Caesar). It is going
to be a while before I have the time to sit down and write out the
chronology. If you got a copy of the book you might be able to get to it
before I. Why don't you do that and also enlighten yourself about where
exactly Ussher was probably wrong. Persian period 80 years too long
making
Ezra and Nehemiah contemporaries instead of 80 years apart as in Ussher
chronology, period between Exodus and first King 114 years too short and
Creation and the Flood 42 years too
late. These are what I am aware are the major differences. Keep these
in mind.

I do not understand the concern with there being several mistakes by
Ussher. We want the truth do we not? So if there is several mistakes then
adjustments can make it longer or shorter at different times. What is so
wrong with considering this?

The only different at the time of the Romans is about 3 years. Most
chronologies seem to place Christ's death at 33 AD instead of at 30 AD.
The Bible says that Jesus began his ministry at age 30 and he was born
between 4 to 3 BC so he would have had to start his ministry at 27AD and
have died at 30 AD.

Maurey's chronology follows the Bible more accurately than Ussher. If
you do not believe it then you at least need to show the author, Rich,
and
I enough respect to show us where we are wrong. You like a challenge, go
ahead and try to show us where we are wrong. I have given you several
Biblical example of where Ussher is wrong (based on the Bible).

Getting back to my first point that started this conversation about
chronology so many emails ago is that Ussher's chronology is likely wrong
and there has been more accurate work (based on Biblical true chronology)
since Usshers work. However, Ussher does deserve the respect that comes
from our acknowledgement that he has provided us with the most
significant advances in Biblical chronology of all time and all modern Biblical
chronology is rooted in the foundation that he laid. That does not mean
that he created the perfect chronology.

John Hext-Fremlin wrote:
The reason in this case Dan for using exact dates is because in the
links page I sent you; it clearly states that one catastrophe ie the flood
in
this author's and indeed Ussher's terms is dated by the paper as between
2350
and 2345 BC; in other words for my purposes here; 2348 BC am 1656 or in
your
terms 2300 BC. As I have not seen your new chronology we are as far as
this author is concerned stuck with Ussher's chronology and indeed untill such
time untill the new chronology comes out then all dates will be quoted in
either Ussher and if you like your figures ending in zero's. As I say I
will look at the table when it is done and keep an open mind about it and I
say again that you will have to show me who the supposed "Fake Roman
Consuls"
are; which you have not yet done. You see Dan first you say it's ownly a
matter of 42 years that Ussher was supposedly off by and then later
you're changing your mind and saying "Oh yes wait a muinute it's not ownly
42
years but 80! plus adding another 114 years to the chronology and making other
minor alterations. The point is "Where does this stop?" Quite clearly
this is a chronology of "Shifting sands as far as I can make out" and
the one
historical document I have at present to rely on is Ussher's Annals of
the world. Are you seriously asking me to believe that the Roman invasion
dates for Britain of 55 and 54 BC are invalied. That cecular historians also
use these dates this author most respectfully insists that they back Ussher's
dates for the Roman invasion of Britain ca 55 and 54 BC respectively and
you cannot escape it. John

John Hext-Fremlin wrote:

Dan there are one or two dates there that confirm Ussher in my view
namely 2345 in their terms and 2350 BC. John

There may or may not be something to these dates. What
are you basing
the significance of these dates on? This is about the time of the flood--is
that where you are going with this. So some secular scholars have
stumbled upon some evidence that might support a catastrophe happening around
2300 BC? Why are we using exact dates? The chronology that Rich is using
places the flood at almost the same time as Ussher. It is the dating of
the length of time between the Exodus and the first kings that is 114
years too few and Persian period 80 years too long, that is where the dates
are off in Ussher chronology according to Rich's source.

By the way Rich is going to help with this project of chronology and
is also going to update a chronology in an Answers in Genesis site.

Did you know that Ezra and Nehamiah were
contemporaries yet Ussher has
them 80 years apart? Although at Usshers time his chronology was a
wonderful contribution to science, there are definite problems with
Ussher chronology!

John Hext-Fremlin wrote:
Dan here's more from Mike Fischer that will help us to put this puzzle of a
catastrophe in ca 2200 BC. It should be bourne in mind that this paper I
sent you is for research purposes ownly irrespective of any dates they try
to "tread water On ". But they do mention Sodom and Gamorah which in
my view
should not be ignored. So in this connection the date of between 2345 and
2350 BC in their terms should be the one to take note of again in Ussher's
terms:- annomundi 1656 and 2348 BC. It looks as though as you say the rest
of their dates are off and would have the "Old Kingdom in Egypt preceeding
the flood. John

MF to HXF

Dear John,
Just when I thought you were stuck, you came
up with another great find. The research on
Timo the Finn's web site is the kind of solid
evidence chronologists need. You now have a
time peg that links many ancient civilizations
over a large part of the earth (if not globally)
reaching back to the later "deep mist" of time.
Chronologists will have to be careful to connect
this (these) catastrophes to the right events.
Timo has gone a long way towards demonstrating
that the cause is impact-related. The chemistry
of the spherules should be a fingerprint that can
lead to the source(s). I noticed a quote from a
researcher referring to Ireland, at 2300 and 1600
BC thereabouts. Do you have any more details
on this Irish connection?
Mike Fischer

RED OCHRE

JXF TO JC

Dear Dr Cuozzo many thanks for
this interesting response; and yes I totaly agree with you that the Neanderthals
had red ochre from their burial ceremonies/cavewall paintings &c as will be
noted of special interest in this conection pertaining to your book "Buried
Alive". As Darrell says however according to "Ice age " dating
and not "C/14 dating" by the conventional dating would be 36000 to
8000 BC which in Biblical or Ussherian timeline would equate (By my theory of an
Ice Planet strike) would be 2191 BC to 1491 BC (Thus 2200 to 1500 BC) at time of
exodus; But by Mike Oard's theory before 2254 BC (Question is which one of these
is correct?) Also as Darrell has pointed out : "Indeed if there were an Ice
Comet; it would be more reasonable to place the strike at the time of the fall
of Babel in 2191 BC. Now if Madai was alloted his land (But traded back to the
Middle East which he did) and was with the survey teams he must have returned to
that land some time around 2191 BC again if my ice planet theory be correct
which brings us from 2254 to 2191 BC using these deductions. The Neanderthals
according to my chronology were here in Britain North Scotland from 2225 BC.
Thus the question remains:- "Were the people from Paviland cave Neanderthal
or were they indeed Cromagnon? John

JC TO
JXF

John, I have seen red ochre on
Neanderthal skulls...real ones in France, not casts. I haven't studied Paviland
but Swanscombe people were very early. Maybe even pre-flood.

JXF TO JC

That's most interesting Dr Cuozzo; I wonder if they (the
Swanscombe People) were in fact some of Cain's descendents. In conclusion to the
idea of Dr HLH (Herman L Hoe) Cain was a wanderer and "Vagabond in the
Earth". What do you reckon Dr Cuozzo of my Ice Plannet Theory? My Friend
Graham A Fisher reckons the same as I do ownly he dates it just after 2247 BC.
However that is as might be. Sounds to me like the Swanscmbe people might have
been around 120 yrs before the flood if HLH is correct. Also interesting is the
fact that the soc alled "Neolithic/ Bronze/Iron and steel industries
degenerated into the palaeolithic around the time of despersion; although
Neanderthal was around a little bit preBabal in 2225 BC, Meanwhile Dr Cuozzo
good hunting on your researches:- John